All the years I followed the news and compared tables with political viewpoints of parties, weighing them, then finding the best party to vote for. That seems a pretty good thing to do, right?

I just stumbled upon a site (called Electoral Headhunter -> with a - in the middle and dot com at the end) which claims it doesn't work like that.

At all. On the contrary. Time is spent in vain comparing. Stop watching the debates. Etc.

It states that we make a decision very quickly, intuitively, based on what we perceive, even (or mostly, or only?) by seeing the faces of the candidates. At least, the best choices are made that way.

To prove (or check) their point, they will give you a voting advice based on how much you like a couple of faces. This firstly seems to be meant in a fun way, but they cite some scientific findings (I copy/paste):

---

* Children (even from age 5) asked to predict whom will win presidential elections in (even) a different country, predict correctly in majority. By the way, don't worry: also adults will do this correctly. * However, when asked to 'think carefully' about the probable winner before picking one, your predictive power diminishes. * These 'predictive powers' are mainly unlinked to candidate characteristics such as gender, age, fame, beauty, etc.

---

I could also cite the links they use to more info about these findings, but that's yet impossible (too few posts), at least they come from articles in The Scientific American.

What do you guys reckon? Are we tricked by reality into believing that it's good to rationally weigh viewpoints -- or on the contrary, by the claims of this site?

BTW the voting advice for me was the right party, although the complete advice was really not 100% correct (seems impossible: quite some viewpoints are listed too).

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused. Some of them have been twisted by the enemyuntil they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?Just some parts, or everything?On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast away by the current? Will we be left behind,no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?Must we rely on luck?

Seemed to describe me very well; told me to vote Green. Of course I tended to choose women, Ralph Nader and men with facial hair. If there were more minorities, I would've chosen them. I am less trustful of traditional political looks (ie clean cut middle aged white males)

To begin with, you are nearly neutral but just a bit against abortion restrictions. Something striking now: you feel somewhat positive about strengthening immigration laws, drug liberalization and legal same-sex marriage. Your clicks also point out that you are nearly neutral but just a bit against foreign interventionism and ending capital punishment. Something else, you are neither for nor against civilian gun control, more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and universal health care.

A strong conclusion is that you are a whole lot in favour of legal same-sex marriage. The fastest voting guide also reveals you get angry when others are in favour of abortion restrictions. Besides you would start a war in favour of drug liberalization.

To begin with, you start smiling when it comes to strengthening immigration laws. The fastest voting guide also reveals you start grumbling when others are in favour of ending capital punishment. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you frown at civilian gun control. Also, you shoulder drug liberalization. And we would think you are a bit against more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and abortion restrictions. Then, you feel somewhat positive about legal same-sex marriage. Besides you frown at universal health care. Finally, you are neither for nor against foreign interventionism.

The advice: Libertarians

However, reliability for the advice is weak. If you wish to have more certainty about Libertarians, perhaps try another run.

Oh my, this was wrong on almost every issue.

Logged

"A thought sent back in time to the theocracy panic of 2005: If you dislike the religious right, wait till you meet the post-religious right." -Ross Douthat

Donald Trump is not a poster on the Atlas Forum, so no, I can't infract him for violating the ToS.

I love how someone "just stumbled" upon a website that impressed him so much that he just had to sign up for the Forum to tell us all about it as his very first post, and then doesn't make another post in the next two months.

Anyway, I took the test and I think it put me on the opposite side of every issue, it was quite funny really. In the end it told me I should vote Libertarian.

To start with, you would start a war in favour of legal same-sex marriage. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you would put up a fight against abortion restrictions. And we would think you would start a war in favour of drug liberalization. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you start smiling when it comes to civilian gun control, more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and universal health care. Something else, you are neutral about foreign interventionism, ending capital punishment and strengthening immigration laws.

The advice: Undeterminable.

Not completely clear! The advice is a tie between Democrats and Greens

Seemed to describe me very well; told me to vote Green. Of course I tended to choose women, Ralph Nader and men with facial hair. If there were more minorities, I would've chosen them. I am less trustful of traditional political looks (ie clean cut middle aged white males)